Measuring the overall value of college athletic programs
Seems like a fairly slow day on the board, which I guess can be expected after yesterday’s hiring of a new BB coach (yay!) and hockey loss to MSU (shit!).
Anyway, I came across this post (on r/cfb) about the most attractive sports programs. I don’t know anything about this dude, but his Twitter description lists Wharton, Penn MBA, and work at the CIA if you’re impressed by that sort of thing. Unfortunately his methodology is as opaque as his previous employer at the CIA.
The author puts this in the context of “realignment attractiveness”, but it seems more generally to be about the overall value of different programs. I can’t say that I entirely agree with the results, but I do like that it is a more holistic approach to measuring a program's value. Here are the results:
Here’s his (again, rather opaque) methodology.
For each factor, a range of metrics were weighted based on expert input, evaluated based on quantifiable data, and scored with statistical comparisons.
Below is a quick overview of the methodology used in scoring. Please note that all individual data points are publicly available.
Any school officials, conf officials, clients, or media staff with questions are free to reach out, and I’d be happy to set up time walk you through relevant data / findings / benchmarks, or custom analysis that may be of interest.
FOOTBALL SUCCESS:
(Most heavily weighted, by far)
– On-Field Success (Last 5 Year, Last 20 Years, All-Time)
– TV Attractiveness (2016-23 – Total Viewers, Avg. Viewers, Rated Games, Network Games)
– Fan Support and Facilities
– Resources & Investment
MARKET POTENTIAL:
– Local Regional Market
– State Market
– Football Prominence Rank in State
ATHLETIC & HOOPS SUCCESS:
– Resources / Investment
– Scale (Teams / Athletes)
– On-Field Success (DC Points / Team NCs / Athlete NCs)
– Basketball Success (Last 5 Year, Last 20 Years, All-Time Tourney Success)
– Basketball Fan Support
INSTITUTIONAL RESOURCES & ACADEMIC SUCCESS:
– U.S. Institutional Rank (USN & WR)
– Global Rank (ARWU/SR + THE ranks)
– Research (Single Campus / Aggregated)
– Resources (Budgets / Endowments)
– Size & Scale (Enrollment / Graduates / FTE Staff)
– Popularity (Applications / Yield Rate)
– Selectivity (Admit Rate)
KEY BONUS FACTORS:
– AAU Membership
– State Flagship Status
– Land-Grant Status
– Elite Academic Status (Top 100 NatU / LAs)
– Established Power Conf. Member (Pre-2023)
NEGATIVE RISK DEDUCTIONS:
– Problematic School Scandals
– Control Risks and School Leadership IssuesFor each factor, a range of metrics were weighted based on expert input, evaluated based on quantifiable data, and scored with statistical comparisons.
And here's a link to the tweet (I wish we could have our media embed button back).
REALIGNMENT ATTRACTIVENESS SCORE
— Tony Altimore (@TJAltimore) March 23, 2024
A Quantitative Perspective 🏟️📊
We wanted to build a model that quantifies a wide range of key factors to look at realignment attractiveness of each current FBS school, and the results were quite interesting, and help explain a lot about the… pic.twitter.com/NiclmHi02Y
March 24th, 2024 at 12:23 PM ^
We're #1!
Close....
March 24th, 2024 at 12:43 PM ^
20 years ago, Nebraska, Miami and Tennessee would've been the top of these lists. 10 years ago, Clemson and Michigan would've been very mid looking. Georgia may have been attractive but not the slam dunk they are now - almost certainly they'd be behind Florida. 30 years ago, not sure how strong USC and Texas would rate but Colorado and Georgia Tech would've been among the most attractive schools in the country. 42 years ago, soon-to-be irrelevant SMU and Pitt would've been more attractive than soon-to-be dynasty Miami.
I think this is a good post, but I really see so much realignment as shortsighted, and the heel turn by the B10 and SEC is unfair. I'm sure the source of this post was well thought out but the future is not predictable, and trying to monopolize the resources from sports in a smaller group of national schools is both less fun but also hopefully doomed to fail.
Miami, Colorado, and Georgia Tech dont have big enough fanbases to be that high.
Nebraska, Tennessee, Clemson will fluctuate a bit depending how good they are but have pretty decent size fanbases.
Georgia, Florida, Texas, USC, and Michigan will always be attractive. Michigan probably has the 2nd biggest following in college sports behind OSU, and Georgia is a hotbed for football talent with a decent size fanbase same with Florida and Texas. USC is kinda similar to Miami in that they'll attract eyes when good, but they were good starting in the 60s and they're a bigger school/fanbase.
Not sure I agree with where Stanford is considering they were left out of the Big Ten merger.
GT has exactly what UGA has in terms of location and resources, and 30 years ago had more fans too. Nebraska was considered unassailable at that time, and 20-35 years ago your narratives of Miami and USC were flipped. 15 years ago tho, USC was considered unassailable.
Everything we think about these schools is not immutable and timeless. Even Alabama and Ohio State have had down periods. Preventing the next Miami, Georgia or Clemson from rising because of a formula that doesn't even match the past is short sighted.
USC and Miami especially struggle to fill their stadium if theyre not good. Miami even struggled when they were good.
Georgia has a 35,000 seat larger stadium than GT and GT has only won 6 times since 1990. Would not agree that they ever had a bigger fanbase than UGA. It's basically Michigan and MSU.
I agree that realignment is short sighted. I'm pretty sure this guy is a consultant that is trying to make money from the whole realignment situation. Here's a key quote from his tweet:
Any School officials, clients, academic staff, or media with questions are free to reach out, and I’d be happy to set up time to walk you through your scores and key benchmarks!
But I do appreciate that he's just going beyond football (though it seems to carry a heavy weight in his scoring) and trying to look at all things that might make a school attractive.
National championship with wins over Sparty, the Bucks and Bama? Priceless.
Sparty seems way overrated, apparently the scandal factor is not well weighed vs other areas but even then maybe I’m missing something. Or maybe it just means they are very attractive to lower conferences like the MAC or CUSA. They should consider leaving the Big Ten, looks like the PAC 2 may be a good fit as well, they can still come back to Michigan stadium from time to time to pick up a nice OOC check when they volunteer to get whacked. Plus their coach has PAC 2 ties so that’s a nice boost!
I'd be interested in conference's mean. If I get a chance later I'll do it.
Realignment is so shortsighted…but I guess if your bonus is based on short-term dollar value delivery, you gotta get paid…
Nobody is trying to innovate. The current market is based on the strategy of “get as big as you can and then leverage your size to get a larger guaranteed share of the existing revenue pool.”
It’s beggar-thy-neighbor economics in fancy clothing, and I hate it. I deal with this bullshit every single day at work, and while you can debate M&A policies when they decrease admin costs and increase data synergies and reduce the number of people who get lost in inter-company handoffs, college football isn’t doing any of that. It’s straight up bullying tactics.
Rutgers last in the Big Ten? Who would have guessed that?
Not a comedian/masturbator that is for sure.
Heeyy-yoooo....
Articles like this should tell the fan base the Dickinson scenario should/better never happen again.
We want our BB program to be as aggressive as our football program in retention.